Posted on 06/20/2005 12:05:40 PM PDT by sionnsar
The Archbishop of Canterbury has two options in the Anglican controversy and for him, both of them are bad. He can watch orthodox Anglicans walk out and eventually become the head of a static, insignificant, mostly western European and North American sect of high-church Unitarians. Or he can become the head of a vigorous international Christian body, most of whose members hold theological views that he clearly despises. Although he can trim with the best of them so nothing should be considered definitive, Rowan Williams seems to have opted for the first choice:
The Archbishop of Canterbury today said he could see no “theological objections” to a woman leading the Anglican Church and admitted many Christians were bigoted towards homosexuals.
Dr Rowan William’ remarks in a TV interview threaten to reopen the divisive debate within the Anglican movement on the two controversial issues which have threatened to take the church to breaking point.
On the subject of homosexuality, the Archbishop said the Bible clearly pointed to the sanctity of marriage for the expression of sexual relationships.
But he said there was pressure from some Christians to accept that homosexual relationships have elements of the same qualities associated with marriage.
Dr Williams added: “And I think one of the problems we face at the moment is distinguishing between two rather different things.
“One is the sort of hesitation which many people quite rightly feel about moving too quickly to a new scheme which might jeopardise what’s said about marriage.
“And the other is, if you like, plain prejudice and bigotry about homosexuality as such, of which there is an awful lot in Christian circles.”
While some Christians use “biblical grounds” to oppose homosexuality, said the Archbishop, it tended to be more about social prejudice and inherited ideas.
“That’s why I’m reluctant to see us foreclosing this by independent decisions which lean on one side rather than the other.”
For a man who is supposed to be an intellectual, Rowan Williams' language can often be amazingly sloppy. Exactly as he did in his speech on the media the other day, here he breezily tosses out inflammatory and slanderous charges and makes no effort to back them up. So you know that many conservative Christians are motivated by "plain prejudice and bigotry about homosexuality as such," do you, Your Grace?
How do you know this? Which ones? Simon Sarmiento reports that the vote on the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution declaring that homosexual activity was incompatible with Holy Scripture broke down as follows: 526 for, 70 against and 45 abstentions. Unless Dr. Williams gets more specific, he's just implied that many, if not most, of the bishops in his own tradition are bigots. Absent clear proof, that ought not be a charge that one Christian levels against another. Exodus 20:16 and all that.
And it is good to know that those of us in the Christian church who refer to what the Word of God says about homosexual activity are actually displaying "social prejudice and inherited ideas." One wonders exactly how it is that Dr. Williams figured this out. And one is certain that if someone were to charge him with deliberately distorting the clear words and clear meaning of Scripture just to make a favored group feel better about itself, my gracious lord of Canterbury would take great offense.
If it begins to look like Anglican conservative bishops around the world are serious about this dispute and start boycotting this meeting, walking out of that one, holding their own meetings without him, starting larger, international Anglican networks and disinviting His Grace from their provinces, expect Dr. Williams to tack back toward the center if not a tiny bit right of there. He's done it before but this time, I think it will do him no good at all. No longer above the fray, Rowan Williams has officially chosen sides.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Still, I am very tired of all this watching for signs that our leaders will do the right thing.
Me thinks it's time to move on.
My wife and I visited an Orthodox Church yesterday.
And where do those "ideas" come from you mindless meretricious twit?
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Rowan Williams is in the wrong profession. He should be in PFLAG or whatever it's called.
Why pretend to be a representative of Jesus Christ and at the sime time believe and teach lying crap that is clearly in complete opposition to the teachings of the OT and NT?
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Misery loves company?
What's the matter? Don't you two know how to swim? I hear the Tiber is wonderful this time of year.
Just kidding... ;-) It's just that I'm always trying to increase the number of good orthodox (small 'o') Catholics! But my prayers are with you and your missus at this time of transition.
Obviously, many people have come to the same decision that you have. We have any number of former Anglicans in my parish, and they tend to take to Orthodoxy with great ease. I hope you had a good experience at the parish you visited.
I have challenged, however, those on this forum who have said that every Anglican *must* leave ECUSA (or Anglicanism in any form), and that every Anglican who leaves *must* choose between Rome and Orthodoxy. Not everyone is at that point in their lives, and some people may find themselves in a place with a pocket of sanity -- whether in "official" Anglicanism or in the Continuing churches.
Anyone who comes to the decision to leave has to do it, as you have, on their own, and in their own time.
Thanks for the prayers. We have also prayed about this - and much more prayer is needed for proper discernment.
I have concluded that the hand of the Lord may be in all this. We orthodox Anglicans are being dispersed, perhaps like the first Christians from the persecution in Jerusalem. I pray that we may be a witness wherever we wash up.
Pax vobiscum.
Well said. It's hard to fathom a low-church parishioner with a firmly Protestant theology making that tremendous leap--even if an Anglican rite is available in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. We can encourage them to take a second look at their ecclesiology, but all else is within God's providence.
Was it Kolokotronis who said this also? I know he's referred that "spark of Orthodoxy" you all perceive within Anglicanism. I still wonder why, or what that spark is.
And how did it go?
I'm really not sure what it is, but there is a certain kind of Anglican that is closer to us in spirit than any other non-Orthodox Christian. Part of this, of course, is that Anglicanism's very flexibility allows it, to a certain extent, to be whatever one wants it to be.
But it is more than that. The dream of Anglicanism, it seems to me, was to try to have it all: be rid of the excesses of Rome, embrace the ancient and undivided Church, live in evangelical immediacy, and keep national distinctives and independence. There's not a lot that Orthodox would find fault with in that dream. And when Anglicans with that dream come into Orthodoxy, they find that dream, not as a creation of the individual mind, but lived out in closely-knit communities, and in living, unbroken continuity with the ancient Church.
I can no longer speak to what it is like to look at Anglicanism from within, but I do know that my Orthodox godfather never gave up hope that large numbers of Anglicans would return to the Orthodox faith through their own path of discovery -- together. I reached a point where I could no longer live out that hope myself within Anglicanism, but I have never stopped having it.
I have joy every time an Anglican comes into Orthodoxy, and I also have joy every time one stands firm and says "I'm going to be a part of trying, even if just for a while longer, to figure this out..."
A great link, Marmema!
I have concluded that the hand of the Lord may be in all this. We orthodox Anglicans are being dispersed, perhaps like the first Christians from the persecution in Jerusalem.
If you want proper discernment, may I suggest that you not compare yourself to persecuted Christians in 1st century Jerusalem unless someone actually starts killing people and streams of hot blood start to flow profusely out the narthex doors.
What you have is a theological dispute. So, may I also suggest that if you do decide to leave, wait until you no longer have any anger at your church. Then, when you do leave, as I did some time ago, you will find that life can be lived quite pleasantly outside the Anglican Communion.
The traditional Episcopalian theology dating back to the Colonial period was very conservative and very Protestant. There was no Marianism, no veneration of Saints and "relics", no "indulgences" and most of all there was no "transubstantion" (Real Presence) in the Communion. (The "Mass" was Anathema)
Our Church had only two Sacraments and Communion was only celebrated about four times a year. A personal relationship with Christ was important and the Doctrine that we are saved by faith through grace and not works was accepted. Over the years, Communion became more important but Transubtantion was never part of the Episcopal theology.
The main similarity between the Roman Catholics and the Episcopalians was a similiar form of liturgical Worship however the underlying theology was very different.
Unfortunatly, the Episcopal Church has lost all of it's Moral underpinnings and has sank into Apostacy so I understand people's eagerness to find a new spiritual home.
My point is that those who "swim the Tiber" and convert to the RC Church while being faithful Christians either do not understand our traditional theology (much closer to the conservative Presbyterians/Lutherans than to Rome) or are choosing form over substance.
I said "dispersed" not "persecuted." Why don't you try reading more carefully before you pull the trigger?
In haste as I am at the office. We've moved to the cottage and we don't have one of these infernal machines there...Doxa tou Theou!
As I have noted before, of all the converts we have in my parish, the former Episcopalians seem to get with the phronema of Orthodoxy the fastest. Indeed I am unaware of any of them having a problem with that. I don't know why. The largest group of converts we have are former evangelicals of various sorts. They tend to be the most fervent, but it takes a long time for them to begin to think and live like Orthodox people, even if they are frankly marvels at quoting the Fathers! Interestingly, it is the Roman Catholics who seem to have the hardest time with the phronema despite the fact that the externals of the Faith are more familiar to them than to the others. Melkites and Maronites seem to slide into the pool of Orthodoxy without a ripple.
Clearly there is something about Anglicanism which predisposes some of its faithful to Orthodoxy and this is nothing new. 100 years ago, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism believed that a reunion was imminent. Nor do I believe that Anglo-Catholics are more Orthodox minded than the evangelical brand, at least I've seen no difference.
Here's an interesting observation. Whether it is from a former Evagelical, a Roman Catholic or Episcopalian, in each instance these people have said to me, perhaps a year or two into Orthodoxy, that Orthodoxy is the fulfillment of everything their former churches promised them. I think that's rather nice.
Same here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.